PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 218.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 30, 2023
DHS Suicide Prevention and Resiliency for Law Enforcement Act
This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Program and establishes additional requirements for related existing programs.
Among other activities, the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Program shall
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
conduct data collection and research on mental health, suicides, and attempted suicides of DHS law enforcement officers and agents;
evaluate current mental health and resiliency programs within DHS components;
promote education and training related to mental health, resilience, suicide prevention, stigma, and mental health resources;
establish a Peer-to-Peer Support Program Advisory Council; and
assist DHS components in developing a program to provide suicide prevention and resiliency support and training for families of DHS law enforcement officers and agents and for surviving families of officers and agents who have been lost to suicide.
The bill requires DHS components to prioritize and improve their mental health and wellness programs.
The DHS Workplace Health and Wellness Program must assess the effectiveness of DHS law enforcement health and wellness programs. Each DHS component must report to the program incidents of suicide involving law enforcement officers or agents. The bill sets forth confidentiality limitations on the publication and collection of personally identifiable information.
People & committees
Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 218.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Peters with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 118-102.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Peters with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 118-102.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: May 27, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1137 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1137 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1137 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1137 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.